20:03:01 #startmeeting tc 20:03:02 Meeting started Tue Jun 4 20:03:01 2013 UTC. The chair is ttx. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 20:03:03 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 20:03:05 The meeting name has been set to 'tc' 20:03:14 On the agenda today, mostly open discussion on governance topics 20:03:20 #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/TechnicalCommittee 20:03:24 ttx: sup! 20:03:28 #topic Open discussion: TC membership evolution, take 2 20:03:35 #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/TC_Membership_Models 20:03:44 We have been looking into various models to evolve the Technical Committee membership 20:03:50 The discussion on the -dev ML is at: 20:03:55 #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2013-May/009578.html 20:04:14 For today I'd like us to come down to one or two models, discuss further this week and vote next week at the earliest 20:04:37 So far two models emerged from the discussion: the "All-directly-elected 11" model and the "6 categorized PTLs + 7 directly-elected" model 20:04:48 Choice between the two all boils down to simplicity (simple direct election) vs. diversity (enforced by the categorized PTLs seats) 20:05:08 Most opinions expressed on the thread were "I prefer All-directly-elected 11, but I could live with 6 categorized PTLs + 7" 20:05:18 Any other opinion ? Anyone strongly against one model or the other ? 20:05:22 good summary 20:05:25 I must have misread the category support somehow 20:05:44 what happened to the best PTLs model? 20:05:44 i really, really want to just try directly-elected and see that it's a problem somehow before making it so darn complicated 20:05:49 that was my second preference 20:06:06 i don't like the categories approach very much at all, personally 20:06:07 russellb: sounds reasonable to me too 20:06:11 russellb, these three marks agrees 20:06:29 markmc: so you prefer all-directed 11 but would pick "best 7 PTLs + 6" as your second preferred option ? 20:06:43 i'd pick that over categories, as well 20:06:44 I'm still wary of an all-directly-elected, but I'm willing to be proven wrong 20:06:57 ttx: does the +6 guarantee 6 seats for non-PTL's? 20:06:59 ttx, right 20:07:03 dolphm: no 20:07:04 I'm wary too of an all 11 election 20:07:10 are there figures somewhere on which projects have how many ATCs? 20:07:12 (not that it matters as much, but) my second is categories + directly elected, but not "PTL" categories 20:07:40 markmcclain: why ? 20:07:47 markmcclain: diversity ? 20:08:16 would like to make sure we capture your wariness accurately :) 20:08:22 yeah… I think that there needs to a be a certain level of enforced diversity 20:08:23 i'm expecting we'd elect 11 smart folks who deeply care about cross-project success, and would consult the right people depending on the issue 20:09:20 o/ 20:09:20 sorry i'm late 20:09:28 It's difficult to enforce diversity and stay simple, so you have to pick one or the other. Personally I care more about representativity and size, so both models would be acceptable for me 20:09:29 russellb: I'd expect that too, but isn't a point of setting up these rules to protect against the situation when our expectations aren't met? 20:09:30 ping 20:09:50 notmyname: i'd just like to see an actual problem before making it overly complex 20:10:36 notmyname: some see simplicity as a key goal... so creating complex rules to prevent inexistant problems is seen as a net negative 20:10:56 russellb: I agree, but I'd also like to avoid awkward situations before they happen. eg "no company may have more than 2 seats" 20:11:34 do you feel people represent company interests on the TC as opposed to how they personally feel for broad success of OpenStack? 20:11:35 I do not 20:11:38 notmyname: which model(s) do you prefer ? 20:12:30 i think if anyone is seen to be representing their company, they should not be re-elected 20:12:35 markmcclain: same question -- would the "categories + directly elected" model have your preference ? 20:12:37 someone said that on the ML, and I agree 20:12:47 ttx: I think I could go either way. I have more concerns over the "all directly elected" model, and those have to do with project representation (especially if the "PTL can override" rule still exists) 20:12:59 russellb: yeah, that should be seen as a bug, not a feature 20:13:27 russellb: ok, a "no more than 2 ATCs from a single project" ;-) 20:13:29 ack :-/ got caught on the wrong side of a netsplit 20:13:29 ttx: yeah I like the cat+direct elect mix 20:13:59 notmyname, I'd like to see more people contributing across projects, that rule would discourage it 20:14:02 notmyname: what if you're an ATC across many/most projects? 20:14:18 note the winking ;-) 20:14:22 ah. 20:14:44 notmyname: the only "control" the TC has over projects is about making them part of "OpenStack" or not. We don't have +2 on the repos. 20:14:44 point being, I think some simplicity is worth sacrificing for better representation 20:15:30 so there is a nuclear option, but otherwise PTLs and core people have control over their project 20:15:32 ttx: and that's my point there. if the TC doesn't have representation from a particular subgroup, then it hurts the overall group (ie encourages divisions) 20:16:09 notmyname: I'm mixed TBH, I don't know how often the TC steps in on a project 20:16:26 jgriffit1: never happened. 20:16:29 it's noble to hope for more cross-project contributions, but I don't think it's realistic. 20:16:33 jgriffit1: good point 20:16:49 ttx: well then it a non-issue for sure 20:17:04 notmyname: certainly for all the projects that are using oslo, it's very common to work cross project 20:17:36 notmyname: i actually feel like swift is the exception in that area, unfortunately 20:17:36 markwash: pong 20:17:41 I'm a little meh oh categories being project-oriented, can somebody speak to the sense of that? 20:17:53 russellb: +1 20:18:03 markwash_: it's a hash function to lower the total number of members 20:18:36 So, if we except markmc... does everyone put "All-directly 11" and "categorized+6" at the top two spots of their preference list ? 20:18:42 Trying to reduce the options 20:18:48 did we bisect? 20:18:59 ttx: i'm with markmc on my option #2 20:19:04 do we have a proposed category list? 20:19:05 ttx: I'd have to know the categories first 20:19:06 ttx: yes 20:19:11 ttx: I'm fine with either, think I prefer #2 20:19:39 markwash: people with blonde hair versus red 20:19:48 I'm in both categories! 20:19:52 :) 20:19:53 everything is true of the null set :-) 20:19:58 I'm fine with either "best ptl" or "categories" 20:20:05 the best 7 PTLs seems marginally better than categorised to me 20:20:10 * annegentle-web read eavesdrop but might not be caught up 20:20:16 although I'm not sure it's helpful to have a hard link between being a PTL and being on the TC - they seem like very different jobs 20:20:23 ok, so "best ptls+5" has supporters 20:20:29 PTL seems to be more about project management 20:20:30 zaneb: +10 very different it seems 20:20:31 I'd be fine with best PTLs too 20:20:36 zaneb: +10 20:20:48 TC should be technical 20:20:54 Categories got up to 12 first draft... 20:20:56 #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2013-January/004539.html 20:20:57 zaneb: ttx and I were just talking about that - I wanted to suggest we actually drop the T from PTL 20:21:07 bcwaldon_: i've wondered that myself, as well 20:21:09 but that's might be a conversation for a different time 20:21:23 my PTL work is much more about project management than technical work 20:21:28 bcwaldon_: throws the chaos grenade and runs 20:21:48 can we save that discussion for another day maybe :) 20:21:52 * russellb nods 20:21:53 we could rat hole I think 20:21:59 +1 for saving 20:22:25 I think having any representative from core on a project > having the PTL from a project on the TC 20:22:45 I really like cross-cutting concerns for categories, rather than projects for categories 20:22:51 Well that's the benefit of the direct election... you don't draw so many lines implying other rules 20:23:08 mordred: how does programs/projects work well in either election system? 20:23:19 markwash: those seem really complex to manage in comparison though :/ 20:23:37 annegentle-web, programs would have PTLs 20:23:39 russellb: but how are you going to convince someone else to do the work if you remove the T? 20:23:42 the amount of time spent in this round of discussion, as well as the last one, discussing the idea of categories should be telling 20:23:43 :o 20:23:44 so, in a all-directly elected 11, all ATC's across all projects would be able to vote on all TC members? 20:23:46 annegentle-web: what markmc said 20:23:48 markmc: ok tx 20:23:54 thx even 20:23:55 dolphm: yes 20:23:58 vishy: *shrug* can discuss another time i guess :) 20:24:04 zaneb: russellb: fair points 20:24:11 which brings us back to direct 20:24:39 a shardy's proxy, I'm compelled to bring up the concern that direct election will result in ~11 Nova developers on the TC 20:24:48 ;) 20:24:52 so - I think that's fair 20:25:03 the amount of ongoing bikesheding we'll have with categories just won't be worth it 20:25:07 zaneb: except the current directly-elected seats prove otherwise 20:25:08 but I'd like to point out that annegentle-web and I and ttx are all on here 20:25:09 markmc: +1 20:25:11 it's killing me 20:25:19 zaneb: niceone 20:25:36 mordred: +1, with really high votes, because you guys are clearly amazing candidates to engage in cross project issues 20:25:47 russellb: aw I like naming things :) 20:26:08 also it's likely that we would engage with representative condorcet, once we investigate how well it performs, further limiting block voting 20:26:11 zaneb, you're not the first to say that, but I really doubt that - do a thought experiment with e.g. posters to openstack-dev and see what names you come up with 20:26:19 mordred: and that's great, the issue would be for smaller projects 20:26:29 i.e. things that don't cut across multiple areas 20:26:30 zaneb: you know I got your back :) 20:26:33 for me, "right categories" > direct 11 > "wrong categories", but we'll always tend towards wrong categories in time, so direct feels better 20:26:34 zaneb: I actually think we'd end up with 11 core-project figures. 20:26:56 mordred: agreed, we have proven with past elections that nova doesn't win all the elected seats. 20:27:00 + one or two pure Nova devs :) 20:27:04 zaneb: I think it we try to tie geting a TC seat to projects, we'll wind up rejecting smaller projects because epople don't want a huge tc 20:27:31 and I think that's worse for the 'small' projects in the long run 20:27:39 also - anybody can come pipe up during this meeting 20:27:42 not picking on dolphm, but there are only like 5 people smart enough to work on keystone. yet it seems pretty important to me that it be represented 20:27:44 oh hai 20:27:46 piping up 20:27:53 mordred: I'm still confused on what the TC's are doing to projects that this is a concern? 20:27:58 tripleo is one of those small projects 20:28:08 programs? 20:28:08 :) 20:28:09 mordred: we seem to spend most of our time deciding what to vote on as we're doing now 20:28:13 russellb: indeed 20:28:15 jgriffit1: yeah. I agree 20:28:16 one logistic aspect I realized when doing some math is that there's never 11 directly elected at once. Just five or six. 20:29:02 so the "all nova all the time" might be lessened as a risk 20:29:38 I'd like a quick show of hands: could you all tell which models are acceptable to you, so that we see which models emerge as favorites and clarify a bit 20:29:57 ttx: also nova will lose leverage as it gets a narrower focus - when we finally kill nova volume and nova network. 20:30:05 * ttx says 1. "All-directly-elected 11" and 2. "Categorized + 7" 20:30:15 1) all 11, 2) best PTLs, 3) categories 20:30:20 1) directly elected, distant 2) best PTLS + whatever, a very very distant 3) categories 20:30:22 ttx: one more question. How is "best" PTL calculated -- must number of votes? 20:30:33 1. "All-directly-elected 11" and 2. "Categorized + 7" 20:30:35 most 20:30:43 markmc, russellb: "categories" or "categories + 7" ? 20:30:52 ttx, latter 20:30:59 1) torn between directly elected 11 and categorized+7 20:31:01 i hate it so much i don't even care 20:31:06 heh 20:31:07 best PTL's + 20:31:11 russellb, more than the current model ? 20:31:18 1. best PTLs 2) cat+7 3) direct 11 20:31:19 1) good categories + N, 2) direct 11 20:31:26 1. "All-directly-elected 11" and 2. "Categorized + 7" 20:31:33 ooh ... good question ... no. so, categories+7 > current 20:31:38 * dolphm s/categorized/best PTLs/ 20:31:46 russellb, thought so :) 20:31:59 categories+X or direct elected 20:32:06 ttx: it's feeling like perhaps we should do a condorcet vote of three choices here 20:32:11 basically no consensus at all ... 20:32:16 mordred: :) 20:32:21 mordred: do it! 20:32:27 well, I don't see anyone saying they want it to stay as it is 20:32:31 mordred: yeah, unless we can narrow down to 2 :) 20:32:31 that's consensus 20:32:39 markmc: ++ 20:32:40 markmc: +1 20:32:54 is there a directly elected 13 option? 20:32:57 and a lot of people not hugely opposed to any of the 3 leading options 20:33:16 annegentle: I see it as an implementation detail 20:33:18 yeah. so I think we honestly need to do a ranked vote of the three leading options 20:33:22 and then just leave it at that 20:33:29 mordred: what would be the 3rd leading option ? 20:33:30 annegentle-web: does the number of members affect your opinion on how they're allocated? 20:33:37 I slightly prefer 6 Categories + 7 directly elected over directly 11. 20:33:43 ttx: direct, cat+7, best ptl+ 20:33:59 mordred, I object to your ordering! 20:34:02 * markmc chuckles 20:34:03 dolphm: more that I want to ensure people aren't concerned of teh diff between 13 and 11 TC members (it just won't matter) 20:34:15 or, let's call it direct, cat+ and ptl+ - and leave specifics on how many humans a type has as a detail 20:34:35 mordred: so, technically, motions are affirmative votes (agree or not agree), but I guess we can pick the motion using condorcet and see if it gets 2.3 of the votes afterwarrds 20:34:45 ttx: zomg 20:34:48 ttx: ok 20:34:51 2/3 20:35:09 * mordred makes a motion that we do a condorcet vote, and then unanimously affirm the output of that vote 20:35:27 Oh, the other way around. interesting. 20:35:39 isn't governance fun 20:35:46 quite. 20:35:47 mordred, on a point of order, you can't unilaterally unanimously anything 20:35:55 keep this up you won't get 13 people willing to run :) 20:35:56 * mordred shoots markmc in the head 20:36:00 I'm ready to accept condorcet results over that set of 3 20:36:08 stepping back a little, why are we even worried about numbers? Everybody is already allowed/encouraged to participate in this meeting. The thing you have to be a TC member for - the voting part - is the only thing that already does scale 20:36:12 do we have 2/3 of our members agreeing on that ? 20:36:26 ttx: I agree 20:36:27 i'd rather know what i'm affirming 20:36:37 so, the earlier suggestion 20:36:52 ttx: i agree 20:37:03 zaneb: I think the thing is that we like to avoid voting when we can 20:37:23 mordred: so it doesn't matter who is on the TC at all then? 20:37:34 also we ahve the option to make the meeting +v if we can't have a discussion anymore 20:37:36 zaneb: except for when it does 20:37:47 so far people are behaving, which is great 20:38:31 looks like we don't have 2/3 in support of accepting whatever comes out of the condorcet poll of the three mentioned options 20:38:46 speak now or we'll do it in two steps 20:38:49 ttx: would it help if I voted 5 times 20:38:57 wait 20:39:02 was I supposed to #agree or something? 20:39:14 ttx: how about we do a #vote on the thign above 20:39:16 * markwash was waiting for the starting gun 20:39:21 I tihnk it's not clear how you're counting 20:39:21 I'm confused. 20:39:24 mordred: ok 20:39:42 +1 20:39:55 also, are we voting on voting? 20:39:58 * annegentle is also confused 20:40:00 i think so. 20:40:07 gabrielhurley, that's exactly what we're doing 20:40:09 annegentle-web died of confusion 20:40:11 only to be reborn 20:40:11 if you're gonna vote on something, then make it clear we need to respond 20:40:17 markwash: snort 20:40:24 Let's vote on "let's have a condorcet poll with the direct, cat+ and ptl+ options and accept whatever comes out of it" 20:40:39 yes please 20:40:42 +1 20:40:45 we need 2/3 support otherwise we'll do it the other way around 20:40:49 who are the voters in the poll? 20:40:56 the tc 20:40:58 what's the other way around? 20:41:01 2/3 affirmative votes. TC members obviously 20:41:03 mordred: ok 20:41:12 other way around: condorcet vote, then a vote to affirm the result 20:41:21 (or decline and go back to drawing board) 20:41:22 why does it have to be condorcet? 20:41:25 3 votes to get to a vote... sigh 20:41:28 russellb: thanks 20:41:35 annegentle: because we have three options 20:41:42 #startvote let's have a condorcet poll with the direct, cat+ and ptl+ options and accept whatever comes out of it? yes, no, abstain 20:41:43 annegentle: because there's 3 options, and there's no clear best 2 20:41:43 mordred: ok, lightbulb, thanks 20:41:44 Begin voting on: let's have a condorcet poll with the direct, cat+ and ptl+ options and accept whatever comes out of it? Valid vote options are yes, no, abstain. 20:41:45 Vote using '#vote OPTION'. Only your last vote counts. 20:41:45 I propose we form a subcommittee to vote on how we will vote 20:41:47 * zaneb runs 20:41:52 #vote yes 20:41:52 #vote no 20:41:58 #vote yes 20:41:59 #vote yes 20:42:00 #vote yes 20:42:01 #vote yes 20:42:01 #vote yes 20:42:03 #vote no 20:42:08 #vote abstain 20:42:11 #vote yes 20:42:16 would you all actually be happy enough with any result? or do you just want it over? 20:42:23 #vote abstain 20:42:24 just making sure. 20:42:25 * ttx reads his copy of the charter to figure out if its enough 20:42:31 russellb: both 20:42:37 #vote yes 20:42:38 russellb: I want to do a proper vote on the items 20:42:50 russellb: I don't think a straight IRC vote will work 20:43:00 russellb: so, whatever the outcome of the vote is, is the outcome of us voting 20:43:07 we need 10 yes, do we have them 20:43:08 russellb: so I will accept it, same as any vote 20:43:18 no we don't 20:43:23 anyone left to vote ? 20:43:38 vishy: ? 20:43:50 #vote abstain 20:43:55 thanks 20:44:00 lol 20:44:23 sorry 20:44:25 #endvote 20:44:26 #vote yes 20:44:26 Voted on "let's have a condorcet poll with the direct, cat+ and ptl+ options and accept whatever comes out of it?" Results are 20:44:27 misread the vote 20:44:28 yes (8): ttx, notmyname, annegentle, markwash, mordred, gabrielhurley, dolphm, jgriffit1 20:44:29 abstain (3): markmc, zaneb, vishy 20:44:29 :) 20:44:30 no (2): russellb, markmcclain 20:44:37 I blame the abstainers 20:44:39 vishy: haha 20:44:45 we needed 10 yes, and even counting jd that's 9 20:44:50 gabrielhurley, for our wisdom? 20:45:04 for perpetuating this debate on voting 20:45:27 so unless people regret their vote we'll do it the other way around. Condorcet on the 3 options, then draft a motion and approve it 2/3 20:45:38 though perhaps refusing to vote on a vote is a wise statement of principle... 20:45:46 gabrielhurley: heh 20:45:46 gabrielhurley: heh 20:45:48 let's go to the next topic, unless someone has more to say on this one 20:46:02 I got something to say! 20:46:04 no wait, nevermind 20:46:28 #topic Open discussion: where does diskimage-builder fit ? 20:46:33 yay 20:46:36 This discussion is a bit linked to the outcome of the previous one 20:46:42 lifeless asked where diskimage-builder should fit at: 20:46:47 #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2013-May/009539.html 20:46:58 Should it go through incubation and be an integrated project ? Should it be shipped as part of Glance ? as an Oslo library ? as a by-product of a TripleO program ? 20:47:09 As long as there are rights attached to specific types of projects (think PTL seats on the TC) this question is actually a bit loaded 20:47:18 (It's not as important if we opt for a model which requires less classification) 20:47:25 as somebody who hears a lot about images and interoperability, I think DiB is an awesome tool that deserves some sort of OS blessing of sorts 20:47:27 (Then I think it's safe to consider TripleO a "program" and diskimage-builder a deliverable of that "program") 20:47:49 that's right "sort of * of sorts" 20:47:53 why not within glance? 20:48:09 annegentle: define "within" 20:48:23 as a separate deliverable of the Glance team ? 20:48:29 so, to clarify, we're not envisioning diskimage-builder as a foundation for image building as a service, right? 20:48:35 maybe it should be 'part of' glance in the same way python-glanceclient is 'part of' glance. 20:48:39 as a binary in glance tarball itself ? 20:48:43 zaneb: it has been discussed 20:48:51 (quoting from lifeless 's email) 20:48:52 zaneb: but no work in that direction has happened 20:48:59 annegentle: I'm open to that, but people have pointed out that glance is really api-focused 20:49:05 annegentle: only makes sense if that's the same team working on it 20:49:06 markwash: ok 20:49:11 rather than getting down to the crunchy image bits 20:49:13 projects are TEAMS. 20:49:21 we are pretty agnostic about the bits of the image generaly 20:49:23 groups of people working on the same thing 20:49:29 I really like the idea of TripleO as a program with DiB as a deliverable 20:49:40 me too - it matches how oslo is working 20:49:43 it seems to me that DiB fits very comfortably in TripleO 20:49:44 russellb: +1 20:49:46 and it has an incubator repo as well 20:49:47 I think a program with a deliverable makes sense 20:49:48 russellb: +1 20:49:55 I'm interestd in TripleO but would still want to know more 20:49:57 yeah, tripleo definitely seems like the big user of di-b 20:50:06 and most overlap in people working on it 20:50:08 markwash: what would you like to know? 20:50:12 so the linked question is.. do we bless programs ? 20:50:12 I'm here and can type to it 20:50:15 markmc: although reddwarf and others are starting to use it as well 20:50:18 just trying to look at it from a consumer perspective - "where do I get an image builder?" they might go to glance 20:50:26 mordred, optionally? 20:50:29 does a program goves you ATC rigths ? 20:50:32 gives* 20:50:43 ttx, I think it would, yes 20:50:45 should 20:50:47 markmc: no. as the basis for how they build the images they use with their guest in them 20:50:53 lifeless: is it a set of deliverables for helping deploy openstack on openstack? or something more monolithic? 20:50:53 are the deliverables of a program covered by the vulnerability management team ? 20:51:05 markwash: it's a set of deliverables 20:51:06 mordred, but not at runtime, right ? 20:51:06 if it gives ATC rights, then the TC needs to bless them 20:51:14 markmc: so at the moment, reddwarf depends on dib as best as I understand it 20:51:19 markmc: I don't know what you mean? 20:51:30 (and program needs to accept oversight of the TC) 20:51:33 markwash: some like dib are new code trees, others like contriutions to heat and nova are patches to existing openstack projects 20:51:46 mordred, building a guest image is more of a setup step, and I assume you could use any image builder 20:52:00 markmc: yes. I suppose you are completely right 20:52:08 mordred, as opposed to reddwarf calling out to di-b while processing an API request 20:52:08 lifeless: cool, makes sense then 20:52:17 markmc: so reddwarf build a guest image as part of their test suite,a nd execute it. 20:52:17 markmc: totally 20:52:22 whereas di-b seems like more of a runtime dep for tripleo 20:52:31 lifeless: are there some long-term-plan docs / vision out there somewhere I could read? 20:52:31 markmc: you can use any iamge builder; and we have a narrow definition for just that reason. 20:52:38 lifeless: ok, so it seems dib belongs in the tripleo program, we just need to finalize introducing the concept of programs first 20:52:44 markwash: certainly. http://github.com/tripleo/incubator 20:52:46 do we know more about the reddwarf/dib dependency? I find this odd at first glance (no pun intended) 20:52:49 lifeless: ty! 20:52:50 is that a good summary ? ^ 20:52:58 ttx: works for me. 20:53:04 lifeless, yeah, but that would mean considering di-b as a test tool dependency 20:53:14 ttx: +1 20:53:19 markmc: for reddwarf it is. it's a runtime dep for tripleo. 20:53:25 lifeless, right 20:53:53 markmc: I'm not happy with di-b on stackforge when it's a CI dep for incubated/integrated project(s). 20:54:05 markmc: which is why I mailed the list :). 20:54:09 ttx: intriguing. . do you have summary of "program vs project" on hand somewhere? 20:54:22 * markwash is sorry if he just wasn't doing his homework. . . 20:54:25 lifeless, fair enough 20:54:29 markwash: https://docs.google.com/drawings/d/1t1t2Aj1rIvxNnIvbjsiTPe5Szpx-lXBpW1dbL4K08cE/edit?usp=sharing 20:54:35 everyone likes a drawing 20:54:47 wow 20:54:47 markwash: still very much WIP 20:54:59 trying to understand all the consequences 20:55:00 just happened to have that "on hand", heh ? 20:55:09 worked on taht today 20:55:16 I've seen the future 20:55:58 the interesting parts are actually in the empty spaces. Like where does the VMT support end ? What do we call the horizontal teams ? 20:55:59 ttx, I'll talk to you tomorrow about better colours for the colour blind :) 20:56:03 if moving to direct TC elections means we can get rid of all these ridiculous legalistic subcategories of names, then I will vote for it right now 20:56:20 zaneb: see, you're starting to get it 20:56:51 ttx: how about you just tell us what you saw in the future and we can skip the vote :) 20:56:57 markmc: was kinda hoping that "all-directed 11" would get so plebiscited that the whole drawing would be useless 20:57:10 ttx, heh 20:57:24 so tripleo is about operating/deploying openstack - with a particular focus on eating-own-dogfood all the way up the stack. 20:57:30 just for clarity 20:57:33 ttx, I'm thinking programs would be a useful concept anyway 20:57:37 ttx: yay for data in diagrams 20:57:46 ttx: I welcome our new Nova overlords ;D 20:57:54 * russellb isghs 20:58:06 nova people are evil, too, watch out 20:58:08 markmc: sure 20:58:19 so... 20:58:50 #agree dib belongs in the tripleo program, we just need to finalize introducing the concept of programs first ? 20:59:00 #agree 20:59:03 ++ 20:59:10 sounds right 20:59:19 also known as "lifeless, please wait while we catch up 20:59:21 " 20:59:30 +1 20:59:39 +1 20:59:45 ++ 20:59:48 #action ttx to set up TC condorcet poll to help select the model that will be put on the TC motion 21:00:06 one more minute 21:00:09 #action ttx to buy mordred some beer 21:00:11 err not 21:00:12 does that work? 21:00:17 you wish 21:00:22 drat 21:00:28 #undo 21:00:31 :-p 21:00:34 If it does I'm setting up an action item for mordred to buy me multiple beers 21:00:51 Only if it is Icehouse beer 21:00:55 #endmeeting